IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/acctfi/v60y2020i4p4093-4119.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Confirmation bias in accounting judgments: the case for International Financial Reporting Standards for small and medium‐sized enterprises

Author

Listed:
  • Dinuja Perera
  • Parmod Chand
  • Rajni Mala

Abstract

We conduct an experiment that investigates confirmation bias in the reporting judgments of accountants when applying International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) for small and medium‐sized enterprises (SMEs). The results indicate that accountants’ judgments are biased towards the recognition and measurement principles of full IFRS when applying IFRS for SMEs. The results also suggest that confirmation bias in judgments can be mitigated by increasing accountants’ awareness of justification requirements and by using appropriate decision aids. These results are likely to be of interest to the 70‐plus countries that have adopted the SME standard and countries that continue to contemplate its adoption.

Suggested Citation

  • Dinuja Perera & Parmod Chand & Rajni Mala, 2020. "Confirmation bias in accounting judgments: the case for International Financial Reporting Standards for small and medium‐sized enterprises," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 60(4), pages 4093-4119, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:60:y:2020:i:4:p:4093-4119
    DOI: 10.1111/acfi.12523
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/acfi.12523
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/acfi.12523?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kopp, Lori S. & O'Donnell, Ed, 2005. "The influence of a business-process focus on category knowledge and internal control evaluation," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 30(5), pages 423-434, July.
    2. Birnberg, Jacob G. & Shields, Michael D., 1984. "The role of attention and memory in accounting decisions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(3-4), pages 365-382, October.
    3. Kennedy, J, 1993. "Debiasing Audit Judgment With Accountability - A Framework And Experimental Results," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 31(2), pages 231-245.
    4. Craig Emby & Michael Gibbins, 1987. "Good judgment in public accounting: Quality and justification," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 287-313, September.
    5. Peecher, ME, 1996. "The influence of auditors' justification processes on their decisions: A cognitive model and experimental evidence," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 34(1), pages 125-140.
    6. Butler, Sa, 1985. "Application Of A Decision Aid In The Judgmental Evaluation Of Substantive Test Of Details Samples," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 513-526.
    7. Ronita Ram & Susan Newberry, 2017. "Agenda Entrance Complexity in International Accounting Standard Setting: The Case of IFRS for SMEs," Abacus, Accounting Foundation, University of Sydney, vol. 53(4), pages 485-512, December.
    8. Tan, Ht, 1995. "Effects Of Expectations, Prior Involvement, And Review Awareness On Memory For Audit Evidence And Judgment," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 33(1), pages 113-135.
    9. Jefim Efrim Boritz, 1985. "The effect of information presentation structures on audit planning and review judgments," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 1(2), pages 193-218, March.
    10. Gibbins, M & Newton, Jd, 1994. "An Empirical Exploration Of Complex Accountability In Public Accounting," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(2), pages 165-186.
    11. Ashton, Robert H., 1992. "Effects of justification and a mechanical aid on judgment performance," Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Elsevier, vol. 52(2), pages 292-306, July.
    12. Waller, William S. & Felix, William Jr., 1984. "The auditor and learning from experience: Some conjectures," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 9(3-4), pages 383-406, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Abbas Saad Hamada Alkhuzaie & Muzaffar Asad & Ala'a Zuhair Ahmad Mansour & Mohammed Ali Bait Ali Sulaiman & Umar Nawaz Kayani & Muhammad Uzair Asif, 2024. "Compliance with Accounting Standards by Jordanian SMEs," Economic Studies journal, Bulgarian Academy of Sciences - Economic Research Institute, issue 1, pages 89-107.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rajni Mala & Parmod Chand, 2015. "Judgment and Decision‐Making Research in Auditing and Accounting: Future Research Implications of Person, Task, and Environment Perspective," Accounting Perspectives, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 1-50, March.
    2. DeZoort, Todd & Harrison, Paul & Taylor, Mark, 2006. "Accountability and auditors' materiality judgments: The effects of differential pressure strength on conservatism, variability, and effort," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 31(4-5), pages 373-390.
    3. Jeffrey R. Cohen & Gregory M. Trompeter, 1998. "An Examination of Factors Affecting Audit Practice Development," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 15(4), pages 481-504, December.
    4. Rich, J. S. & Solomon, I. & Trotman, K. T., 1997. "The audit review process: A characterization from the persuasion perspective," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 22(5), pages 481-505, July.
    5. Trotman, Ken T. & Bauer, Tim D. & Humphreys, Kerry A., 2015. "Group judgment and decision making in auditing: Past and future research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 56-72.
    6. Koch, Christopher & Weber, Martin & Wüstemann, Jens, 2007. "Can auditors be independent? : Experimental evidence," Papers 07-59, Sonderforschungsbreich 504.
    7. Peecher, Mark E. & Solomon, Ira & Trotman, Ken T., 2013. "An accountability framework for financial statement auditors and related research questions," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 38(8), pages 596-620.
    8. Jim Psaros, 2007. "Do principles‐based accounting standards lead to biased financial reporting? An Australian experiment," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 47(3), pages 527-550, September.
    9. Michael Gibbins & Ken T. Trotman, 2002. "Audit Review: Managers' Interpersonal Expectations and Conduct of the Review," Contemporary Accounting Research, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 19(3), pages 411-444, September.
    10. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Knechel, W.R. & Wallage, P., 2008. "The Effect of Audit Standards on Fraud Consultation and Auditor Judgment," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 11687, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    11. Florian Hoos & Jorien Louise Pruijssers & Michel W. Lander, 2019. "Who’s Watching? Accountability in Different Audit Regimes and the Effects on Auditors’ Professional Skepticism," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 156(2), pages 563-575, May.
    12. Nonna Martinov-Bennie & Gary Pflugrath, 2009. "The Strength of an Accounting Firm’s Ethical Environment and the Quality of Auditors’ Judgments," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 87(2), pages 237-253, June.
    13. Marija Aleksovska & Thomas Schillemans & Stephan Grimmelikhuijsen, 2019. "Lessons from five decades of experimental and behavioral research on accountability: A systematic literature review," Journal of Behavioral Public Administration, Center for Experimental and Behavioral Public Administration, vol. 2(2).
    14. Kang, Yoon Ju & Trotman, Andrew J. & Trotman, Ken T., 2015. "The effect of an Audit Judgment Rule on audit committee members’ professional skepticism: The case of accounting estimates," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 46(C), pages 59-76.
    15. Kida, Thomas & Smith, James F., 1995. "The encoding and retrieval of numerical data for decision making in accounting contexts: Model development," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 20(7-8), pages 585-610.
    16. Tim Hermans & Martine Cools & Alexandra Van den Abbeele, 2021. "The role of information accuracy and justification in bonus allocations," Journal of Management Control: Zeitschrift für Planung und Unternehmenssteuerung, Springer, vol. 32(2), pages 197-223, June.
    17. Owhoso, Vincent & Weickgenannt, Andrea, 2009. "Auditors’ self-perceived abilities in conducting domain audits," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 3-21.
    18. Gold-Nöteberg, A.H. & Gronewold, U. & Salterio, S., 2010. "The Impact of Error-Management Climate, Error Type and Error Originator on Auditors’ Reporting Errors Discovered on Audit Work Papers," ERIM Report Series Research in Management 20551, Erasmus Research Institute of Management (ERIM), ERIM is the joint research institute of the Rotterdam School of Management, Erasmus University and the Erasmus School of Economics (ESE) at Erasmus University Rotterdam.
    19. W. Robert Knechel & Justin Leiby, 2016. "If You Want My Advice: Status Motives and Audit Consultations About Accounting Estimates," Journal of Accounting Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(5), pages 1331-1364, December.
    20. Bonner, Sarah E. & Sprinkle, Geoffrey B., 2002. "The effects of monetary incentives on effort and task performance: theories, evidence, and a framework for research," Accounting, Organizations and Society, Elsevier, vol. 27(4-5), pages 303-345.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:bla:acctfi:v:60:y:2020:i:4:p:4093-4119. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaanzea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.